Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Sensationalism is one thing. Convicting Trump in advance is another. The former is very common and accrues from the market forces you describe. The latter is rare, and something unique. Like the WMD mess, there the media is pushing a specific narrative. The Chinese Robbers fallacy applies to the sensationalism. It does not apply to the narrative-crafting.
And it's not tinfoil hat stuff at all. You know me so you know when I'm talking about media bias, I am not talking out my ass. I've been in numerous studios and hung out with a lot of fucking media people. They'll even admit there's media bias. (And you were never going to get away with burying the lede like that. You have to try a bit harder.)
|
I agree that the media have biases. We just disagree about what those biases are. Specifically here, I disagree that the media had some particular agenda with regard to Trump and Russia, or was pushing a very specific narrative. Please show me a news story from the New York Times or the Washington Post that "convicted Trump in advance." Just one.
Quote:
|
2. Take that up with Robert Mueller. You two apparently do not agree.
|
Uh, no. I would still like to find out what Mueller thinks, rather than have it filtered through the Attorney General.
Among the other things that we have learned about the ties between Trumpworld and Russia:
- Trump seeks to talk to Putin alone, without anyone else from the government
- Trump was looking to do a real estate development in Moscow while he was running for President
- Multiple people in his campaign met with Russians during the campaign and lied about it
- On the campaign stump, Trump asked Russians to hack Hillary's email
- Roger Stone was in communication with Assange (widely understood to be a Russian tool) and was giving the campaign a heads-up that damaging leaks would be released
- Manafort owed huge sums to Russian oligarchs and worked for Trump for free
- Manafort shared campaign data assets with Russians with close ties to the government
- Just about everyone in Trumpland lied about most of the above
"Collusion" is not a crime, so the notion of having proof to charge it is specious. I'm not sure whether any of the above was a crime. Barr's letter does not deny any of the above, which we know thanks to Mueller's investigation. There is absolutely no doubt that Trump's organization has been coordinating with Russians, even if it's not criminal.
A few weeks ago, you were defending Manafort from the awful treatment he received from Mueller -- how unfair it was! Now you've discovered that Mueller is to be believed. Your urge to defend the Trumps here is odd. I look forward to the discussion we have in five years where you explain how we all knew the Trumps were in the bag for Putin, just like we all knew there were no WMD.
